Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to take new clause 14—Consultation with landlords—

'( ) Before taking any action under section 2 above the Secretary of State shall consult with such organisations as in his view represent landlords in order to take into account any views expressed by them as to how any such action can be taken in such a way as to lessen any hardship caused to landlords.'.

I will obviously wish clause 2 to be withdrawn when the time comes. As we heard from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton this morning how valuable it would be to involve landlords in the process, I conclude that we have already heard the debate on new clause 14. May I move to a vote?

That is a matter for the Committee rather than the Chair. I put the question that clause 2 stand part of the Bill, which is debatable.

I wish to speak to new clause 14. I will put forward different arguments to those I used earlier. I did not mention the representations that I had received from landlords who are extremely concerned about this legislation. I am not talking about any old landlord, but about the National Housing Federation, which I believe has written to many hon. Members.

The NHF says that social landlords are especially concerned about the Bill. They would have to live with the consequences and they worry about the tenants that would face benefits sanctions and, more importantly, those who have to endure antisocial behaviour. They have a huge interest in the subject. Therefore, it is right that they should be consulted, as new clause 14 proposes.

I wrote to that body asking, ''Who did you consult before you wrote to me saying that you

were going to try to sabotage this Bill?'' The reply was, ''Nobody.'' Advice was taken from officers. That is how representative that body is.

The federation is a body of landlords. Presumably, if the landlords who are members strongly disagreed, they would vote out the people who run the NHF. That would be the right and the proper way to do it. One presumes that, although they have not undertaken a survey or representative sample—

They did not take any.

The right hon. Gentleman may say that, but perhaps the federation understands its sector very well. It is a body of experts that talks to landlords and understands their needs. It would be odd if a body answerable to its members went in completely the opposite direction to them.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, but he not should dismiss the NHF out of hand. It represents the independent social housing sector. About 1,400 not-for-profit housing associations are members. Together, they own or manage about 1.8 million homes in England. I call that a sizeable institution.

The federation has expressed a range of concerns about how members would manage if the Bill were enacted. It wishes to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that its members have to work with vulnerable people whose behaviour poses a risk to the community and to themselves. The job involves promoting the safety of the wider community, but they feel that the Bill would jeopardise the work that they undertake. Through the automatic procedures that are proposed, they would lose control and would not be able to manage some of the problems with which they have to deal. By centralising the administration, which we will address in due course, this Bill will, in effect, enable the Secretary of State to micromanage this problem. As the Government are taking that approach, it makes even more sense that the Secretary of State should be under a duty to consult with landlords and the organisations that represent them. They can give the Secretary of State a grassroots response to how this legislation is operating in practice and their views need to be taken seriously. For the record—and to enlighten the right hon. Member for Birkenhead—I have not written to the NHF to ask whether it thinks that this new clause is sensible. However, its briefing, which he has obviously also received, suggests that it would like to be consulted.

The NHF believes that the threat of the withdrawal of housing benefit would deter reputable private landlords from renting to anyone who is receiving welfare benefits. I know that from what has happened in my constituency. For its sins, Kingston took on a wonderful private sector company called EDS to administrate its housing and council tax benefits. I was aware of the consequences of its mismanagement of housing benefit because many people who were affected sought my help in dealing with this appalling private contractor. One of the damaging long-term effects of the company's mismanagement was that

landlords were put off from renting to people on housing benefit, because the administration was so slow and poor and the landlords were not receiving the housing benefit for their social tenants. Although Kingston got rid of EDS about two years ago, some very vulnerable people, who need to rent in the private sector and who would be eligible for housing benefit, are still feeling the effects of its mismanagement because private landlords will not accept them.

In Kingston, there was a reduction in the number of private sector landlords as a result of that poor administration of housing benefit, which backs up the NHF's argument that it should at least be involved in this process so that it can point out the pitfalls and the problems.

On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. What relevance does this have to the clause? We hear about a crap company such as EDS affecting everybody; we are talking about a specific, targeted and very small group of families.

I was asking myself the same question and I ask the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton to focus his attention on that question. Is the current content of his contribution relevant to the Committee's business and especially this new clause?

I wanted to come back to the text of the new clause, to show the relevance of what I am saying. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Birkenhead says from a sedentary position that I should have gone to the text of the clause in the first place. I was coming to that, but then he made his point of order.

Order. Therefore, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman comes to that matter forthwith.

The new clause says

'the Secretary of State shall consult with such organisations as in his view represent landlords in order to take into account any views expressed by them as to how any such action can be taken in such a way as to lessen any hardship caused to landlords.'.

That is why I am referring to concerns expressed by organisations that represent landlords. I am expressing their concerns to give a flavour of what might happen if the new clause were accepted and that is pertinent.

I have touched on a concern that the Bill would deter reputable private landlords from renting to any person in receipt of welfare benefit, but I shall move on to a further worry. The federation's members say that households to whom local authorities do not owe a duty of secure accommodation might find themselves sleeping rough because they would be effectively barred from renting accommodation. They are worried because they want the communities for which they provide housing to be manageable and safe.

Order. We are, once again, treading on territory that has been trodden several times before.

I am talking about the concerns of members of an organisation that represents landlords. I think that they would need to be heard if new clause 14 were agreed. I am trying to explain—

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to draw a distinction between what the landlords are

concerned with and detailed discussion of that matter, which has been discussed umpteen times.

Let me list the organisation's concerns, if you would find that more acceptable, Mr. O'Hara. First, resting the power to withhold housing benefit with the Secretary of State is administratively cumbersome and will not allow the flexibility that is needed to deal with complex family problems. Secondly, withholding housing benefit is likely to increase evictions for non-payment of rent. Thirdly, if an evicted household contains a person who has a right to be rehoused under homeless legislation, such as a minor, a local authority might have to pay for temporary accommodation but be unable to secure permanent rehousing. We have not debated that issue, but I am listing it because of your strictures, Mr. O'Hara. Fourthly, the organisation understands that people who become homeless as a consequence of the Bill will be classified as intentionally homeless. They do not want children to be taken into care simply to punish their parents.

If I ever get the opportunity, I will explain to the Committee why such a new clause is not appropriate. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the right hon. Member for Birkenhead got the chance to speak this afternoon, he might explain that the clause is about private tenants rather than housing association tenants? I put it to the hon. Gentleman that there is a difference between a monologue and a democratic discussion.

I could engage in a debate on that point—

Order. I strongly advise the hon. Gentleman not to.

I am sure that the Minister will have plenty of time to answer. As you said at the beginning of the sitting, Mr. O'Hara, we may sit until any hour. The Minister is bound to have the opportunity to reply.

At your suggestion, Mr. O'Hara, I was listing concerns that landlords have expressed and would be likely to express. I referred to the concerns of the National Housing Federation, and I would like to mention worries that I have heard from the Scottish Council for Single Homeless, which is a national membership body in Scotland for individuals and organisation that work to tackle homelessness. Its members include housing associations, voluntary organisations and individual landlords. The Secretary of State would be likely to consult with such bodies and people if new clause 14 were accepted. I shall not list all of the organisation's many worries—hon. Members would have received a letter from it at the beginning of June. It believes that, for reasons of principle and practicality, the Bill will not have the intended effect. That shows why the new clause is so important. The people involved house people who behave in such a way, and are aware of all the other measures that we discussed at length and know how to use them.

I am trying to persuade the Committee that such landlords and representative organisations of landlords are exactly the people with whom the

Secretary of State needs to be in regular contact to make the Bill work and his new clauses effective.

On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. How many times must we hear from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton that the Secretary of State needs to consult? We have heard the same form of words about half a dozen times.

In this case, it comes in the context of consultation with landlords. I trust that we are reaching the conclusion of the argument of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton on that point.

I appreciate that the amendment is tight and focuses on landlords. One reason why I thought that this was an appropriate moment to raise the matter was that other hon. Members suggested that that group of people are sometimes not involved in discussions.

Many of the examples that I have given relate to partnership with landlords, both social and private. The new clause would embed that partnership and ensure that landlords are involved in the development of other measures designed to tackle antisocial behaviour and linked to the housing benefit sanction.

I learn more about the housing benefit system and how it works from speaking to landlords in my constituency than from speaking to any other group of people—including even tenants. As I am sure hon. Members are aware, tenants often do not understand the complexities of the system because it is such a minefield. Landlords, however, because their cash flow is involved, are extremely aware of those complexities. They drew to my attention several problems in our housing benefit system. They face a huge number of changes in regulations that affect the system.

Order. I do rule that out of order.

I was about to try to make that comment relevant and say that, as the Bill unfolds, such people will need to be consulted to ensure that some of the mistakes that have been made in the past do not recur.

The Government new clauses, which, although we will vote on them later, seem likely to be agreed, give the Secretary of State power to make regulations to prescribe how housing benefit will be withheld. As the law will develop over a period of months and will, no doubt, like other aspects of the housing benefit administration system, have to be continually tweaked, such people will need to be consulted. If they are not, they will withdraw their services from people on benefits, which would result in increased homelessness and hardship.

The amendment would help the Government. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response and whether he will consult. His argument may be that he will do so anyway, so the amendment is not necessary, but if we believe that that is necessary, it should be specified in the Bill.

When replying to the debate, I hope that the Minister will assure the Committee that he has already had discussions with landlords prior to drafting the new clauses. It would help me to know which landlord organisations he consulted—I hope that it was a representative sample.

Order. The hon. Gentleman will notice from my body language that I consider that he has fully expanded his arguments about the new clause. I do not want him to advance them with further words.

I am drawing my remarks to a close, Mr. O'Hara, something about which I am sure that you and members of the Committee will be happy. I hope that the Minister will give us a detailed response to the debate and assure us that he will either accept the amendment or the spirit in which it was drafted. I am sure that all members of Committee will welcome such an assurance.

I hope that the Minister will confirm what has always been his approach, which is that he is always willing to listen to people who wish to enter into conversation with him, but less keen on people who lecture him at great length on various matters. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton cited one social housing group as though it had come down from Mount Sinai with the view of its members about the Bill. I wrote to the group; it had not consulted its members. It relied on experts. I was disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman, who usually argues that we must take action from the grass roots upwards, supporting an organisation that was imposing a will from the top and not consulting people. When the Minister and the Secretary of State debate the Bill on Report, I hope that they will be consulting widely as they have done in the past.

We have received several representations. I shall not go into that matter now; I will save it for the Floor of the House. However, I do not believe that the organisations that have lined up to attack the Bill have asked their members whether they share that view. The Guardian printed a letter today from two organisations that have honourably spoken on behalf of older people and which are worried about the measure. Apart from one single mother who has enormous courage, the only people who are willing to appear in the courts in Birkenhead to get something done about antisocial behaviour are pensioners. I doubt very much whether those organisations have asked the views of even one pensioner.

The right hon. Gentleman said that organisations, in particular the National Housing Federation, have not been consulting. Did he consult widely with landlords when preparing the Bill? Does it mirror their specific views? Has he met any landlords who are against the Bill, or are they all in favour of it?

Obviously, I must not take interventions, because there is a certain structure to what I want to say, and I will cover such points.

After I received the letter that the hon. Gentleman received, I consulted—unlike him—the association that deals with the largest group of social housing in my constituency. It is probably one of the largest in the

country. The association said that, provided that we adopted the Liberal Democrat policy of establishing sin bins, it would have no worries with the measures under the Bill. It was not talking about policy officers writing papers to lobby MPs, some of them misusing public money in doing so. I shall return to that when I get to the Floor of the House—if people want to involve themselves in politics, they must expect a proper fight.

In the course of the right hon. Gentleman's experiences, has he, like me, come across landlords who are as concerned as their tenants about the misbehaviour of other tenants who are antisocial, who make it difficult for good landlords to find good tenants, and who have a bad effect on a neighbourhood and thus drive down the value of properties?

I have indeed, as have almost all other members of the Committee. I have not received any representations from those landlords—those vagabonds—who buy up houses as cheaply as possible, shove in people on housing benefit, and happily witness the collapse of decent working class communities because of their failure to act as proper landlords. I was therefore pleased when my hon. Friend the Minister told me that they could not support the clause because of the European convention on human rights, but would put proposals before the House that would deal with those rogue landlords. I emphasise that most landlords in my constituency and, I suppose, elsewhere, are decent people who are as appalled by this behaviour as are pensioners in my constituency who seem to be so misrepresented by their national organisation in The Guardian today. When we vote, I will ask hon. Members not to agree that the clause stand part. I will also ask them to reject new clause 14, as all of us would support the last plea made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton that the Minister should consult widely when he moves to regulations.

When my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead was speaking, I reflected that the Committee was trying to discuss several substantive issues that his Bill raises. Some of them are difficult, and the Committee wanted to discuss them more fully. At the beginning, I mentioned that I recognise that we stand in the middle of the road on the Bill and are vulnerable to attack from those who think that we are not being strong enough. I tried to explain the reasons for our position. We also appear vulnerable—although I do not feel so vulnerable—to those who think that we are being too hard. However, I very much regret that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton chose to adopt that approach, as it has meant that we have not had a proper debate.

We could not properly discuss some of the difficult issues that I needed to confront. He referred to the fact that Surbiton was the scene for, ''The Good Life'', which some of us still remember with affection. In that programme, the characters occasionally dug a hole to plant plants and vegetables, but they never made the mistake of being in the hole and not stopping digging. He kept digging a hole and lost the Committee with some of his arguments. Some of them deserved proper

discussion, but the manner of his approach has prevented that.

The hon. Gentleman missed the point when he talked about landlords, as my right hon. Friend is concerned about the behaviour of private landlords in particular, not those in the social landlord sector. That point about rationality would be of no interest to one member of the Committee.

The Government amendments do not include any equivalent of the clause, because it could prove to be unfair in practice. After all, housing benefit is an entitlement of the tenant, not the landlord. In practice, therefore, denying benefit to the landlord for a given property would mean denying benefit to any tenant who happened to live there. If the antisocial tenant moved out and a wholly innocent family took over the tenancy, it would clearly be unfair to restrict its entitlement to housing benefit. We also have concerns about the possible effect that the clause might have on the market by making private landlords less willing to let to housing benefit claimants.

The Government are aware of the problems that irresponsible landlords can cause. Some areas—in particular, those where there is low housing demand—have attracted unscrupulous, even criminal, landlords and antisocial tenants, some of whom have been excluded from social housing. These people can cause misery to the local community, and often cause further decline by forcing out law-abiding landlords, tenants and owner-occupiers.

People who are concerned about children and homelessness make representations, but they seem to have no understanding of the situation of law-abiding tenants who have been forced out and become homeless. Those tenants might have to sleep on their friends' floors. Their children might have been unable to go to the local school, which would disrupt their education. All of that would have happened because of the behaviour of people whose rights we have heard a lot about, but whose responsibilities need to be emphasised today. Some Committee members seem to have no understanding of that aspect of hardship and child neglect, which is caused by the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour.

I can illustrate that point by referring to a case in my constituency: a woman and her children were driven out of their home because of the thuggishness of her neighbours, which caused them great hardship. That sort of behaviour can also lead to the decline of a community. I look forward to receiving representations about that from bodies that are concerned with children's welfare and homelessness. They have neglected to do so until now, but I would welcome their evidence.

Tackling the spiral of decline in such areas is a huge and complex task. Last year, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—as it was then called—consulted on proposals for the limited licensing of private landlords, as an additional way of controlling the problem.

However, it is important to emphasise that the vast majority of private landlords are law-abiding, which is one reason why we need to get this right. There is huge pressure on housing in many parts of the country. The Government see the private rented sector as an important way to reduce those pressures. Therefore, we want to encourage landlords and help to improve quality and standards where necessary. The proposals that we are developing are a more appropriate way of tackling problems where they exist than the possibly rather punitive approach that is suggested by clause 2.

I hope that, having emphasised our need to take action in future on housing policy, Committee members will decide not to retain this clause.

Question put and negatived

Clause 2 disagreed to.Clause 3Short title, commencement and extent